Tripura High Court
Sri Jamuna Prasad Roy Barman vs The State Of Tripura on 25 July, 2017
Bench: T. Vaiphei, S. Talapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(Crl.) 09 of 2016
Sri Jamuna Prasad Roy Barman,
son of late Binoy Bhusan Roy Barman
of Akhaura Road, North Joynagar,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District : West Tripura
..................... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Government of Tripura
2. The Director General of Police,
Government of Tripura, Agartala
3. The Superintendant of Police,
Government of Tripura,
West Tripura, Agartala
4. Sri Subrata Debnath,
son of unknown,
Officer-in-charge,
Sidhai Police Station
under West Tripura
5. Sri Bipin Debbarma,
son of unknown,
S.I. of Police, Sidhai Police Station
under West Tripura District
.......... Respondents
6. Sri Haradhan Bhowmik,
son of Unknown,
resident of Budhamandir, Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala,
District : West Tripura
.......... Proforma Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 09 of 2016
Page 1 of 6
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
For the petitioner : Mr. B. Choudhury, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. A. Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. R.C. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate
Date of hearing and
Judgment & Order : 25.07.2017
Yes No
Whether fit for reporting :
√
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Talapatra J.) Being aggrieved by the inaction of the police, this petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondent No.4, the Officer-in-Charge, Sidhai Police Station [in person] for taking action on the First Information Report dated 15.09.2016 [Annexure P/1 to the writ petition], it reveals that the informant's wife namely Smti. Rupa Roy Barman is the owner of a rubber plantation measuring 2 hectare under Sidhai Police Station.
2. One Haradhan Bhowmik was entrusted to look after the said rubber garden since 1988 on the condition that he would give a sum of Rs.25,000/- per year. Till 2011, the said amount was paid by the said person. In the year 2012, the said person proposed that if that tapping was not done for 2/3 years, the plantation would W.P.(Crl.) 09 of 2016 Page 2 of 6 produce more latex. On good faith, the petitioner had gone by the said proposal. In the year 2015, however, a sum of Rs.7000/- was paid out of the income from the said plantation. The remainder of the amount was not paid. In the year 2016, again Sri Bhowmik repeated the same proposal to stop the tapping. The petitioner visited the said garden keeping the said person unaware and found the workers employed by Sri Bhowmik were collecting latex. They informed that the latex was being collected uninterruptedly and Sri Bhowmik was selling the produce without knowledge of the petitioner and his wife. In the process, they lost about Rs.1,00,000/- for the illegal act of Sri Bhowmik.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as canvassed in this petition is that the respondent No.4 having received the said First Information Report did not take any action. However, the petitioner has averred in this writ petition that subsequently, on 21.09.2016, on the basis of the said FIR, Sidhai P/S Case No. 64/16 was registered under Section 420 and 406 of the IPC.
4. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that when a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police is bound to register a specific case in terms of Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. Even though, the said FIR [Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition] had disclosed a cognizable offence on 15.09.2016, the Sidhai Police Station did not register the case. Taking advantage of the said inaction, the respondent No.6 tried to intimidate the petitioner.
W.P.(Crl.) 09 of 2016 Page 3 of 6
5. Despite the respondent No.4 was approached by Mr. J.P. Saha, the counsel of the petitioner, no specific case was registered till 21.09.2016. According to Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this is a gross dereliction of duty by an Officer-in-Charge of a police station for which the respondent No.4 is liable to be prosecuted under Section 88 of the Tripura Police Act, 2007. Section 88 of the Tripura Police Act provides for punishment on conviction for dereliction of duty by a police officer. For the various forms of dereliction as catalogued under Section 88, a police officer can be convicted and punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1(one) year or with a fine or both.
6. Mr. A. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 & 4 have submitted that the concern of the petitioner is wholly misplaced. The respondent No.4 on 15.09.2016 was on casual leave. Till the midnight of 20.09.2016, the First Information Report was not placed before him. Consequently, no specific case could be registered but as soon as the respondent No.4 came to know of the complaint dated 15.09.2016, he directed one Samir Debbarma, Sub Inspector of Police to register the First Information Report and to take up the investigation. Thus, the case was registered as stated.
7. In Para-4, the respondent No.4 has averred that non- registration was unintentional and not for any mala-fide purpose. The delayed registration is for lapse of Sub Inspector, Samir Debbarma. Mr. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. has categorically stated W.P.(Crl.) 09 of 2016 Page 4 of 6 that on completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer namely Samir Debbarma has submitted the final police report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. on 26.11.2016 vide Sidhai P.S. F/R(T) No.43/16 observing that "the fact is true but wanting in evidence". As a result, even though the culpable act was found to be true but none could be located for commission of the said offence.
8. Since, the investigation is over and final police report has been filed with the said observation if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the investigation, the petitioner should have approached the court of the Magistrate where the FRT has been submitted. In such circumstances, the concerned court of the Magistrate does issue notice to the informant apprising him that the accused person has been discharged from the allegation of committing offence. In that event, the petitioner has the right to file a protest petition and the Magistrate on such occasion either may take cognizance or may on prayer of the informant direct further investigation for submitting a fresh final report.
9. This court has not been appraised by the petitioner what action he had taken on filing of the FRT. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the action of the police, he may file the protest petition questioning the prima facie inference of the Investigating Officer or may file the petition for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. But this court cannot extend its jurisdiction to interfere with the outcome of the investigation in the manner as urged. So far the question of prosecuting the respondent No.4 is concerned, this court is of the considered view that for prosecuting a W.P.(Crl.) 09 of 2016 Page 5 of 6 police officer, the petitioner has to comply the provisions of Section 92 of the Tripura Police Act, 2007 which provides that :
"No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act when the accused person is police officer except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence by, or with the previous sanction of an officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf."
In short, the prosecution sanction would be required from the authorised officer of the state government for initiating a criminal prosecution for committing offence punishable under Section 88 of the Tripura Police Act.
10. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly admitted that no such prosecution sanction has been sought or obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek the prosecution sanction in terms of Section 92 of the Tripura Police Act, 2007 from the officer authorised by the state government in that behalf.
11. Having observed thus, we are of the considered view that no meaningful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending and as such, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above observation.
The docket of Case Diary as produced by Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned Addl. P.P. be returned to him forthwith.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sabyasachi. B
W.P.(Crl.) 09 of 2016
Page 6 of 6